Originally Posted by
bogan
It seems I did not explain that very well, the picky terminology is used to highlight the focus of the debate. For a conspiracy theory to be proven real, you would rely on and validate the basest evidence underpinning the theory; in this case it would be the physical evidence at ground zero, as this could show the conspiracy to be true or false. However, all too often such discussion is derailed by avoiding such evidence in favor of shotgunning theories about motivation, and behaviors after the fact; it does not matter at all if building standards were changed, because no outcome from that discussion would have any meaningful bearing on whether 911 was a conspiracy or not.
Bookmarks